44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 11, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/11/24 10:04:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 10:05:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the only concern I would express is that we actually now have a motion on the floor, and I think the motion has to be dealt with before anything else. That would be my interpretation.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 11:51:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a whole lot to digest.
An hon. member: Listen.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 11:52:23 a.m.
- Watch
That is the problem, I was listening.
Madam Speaker, the amount of information coming from the member was somewhat misleading. One would think that we have shut down the oil industry completely. By mid-July, we will have had more oil going from Alberta to the west coast than Harper did in 10 years.
In fact, with respect to the TMX, I would like to quote her idol of all premiers, Danielle Smith. Danielle Smith said that the Prime Minister “made the right decision to purchase the project six years ago.” If memory serves me correctly, that very member was soundly critical of the Prime Minister's decision back then. I wonder if she would agree to flip-flop on that position in support of her idol, the Premier of Alberta.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:06:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to Conservatives speak to this legislation. Obviously, they are four-square against the legislation. They are in election mode. They hate this legislation.
Canadians need to have an understanding of what is actually in the legislation itself that the member is so adamantly opposed to, such as the sustainable jobs partnership council. What is wrong with a council working with Canadians in communities, looking at sustainable jobs into the future and providing a strategic annual report and a report that comes out on a five-year plan? What is wrong with that?
The Conservative Party believes, at the end of the day, that anything that includes the word “sustainable” or “environment” is bad for Canadians. I have news for the Conservative Party: These are good things. Working with Canadians is a good thing. Why is the member opposed to that aspect of the legislation?
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:21:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party is taking such an objection to having more workers and communities at the table. This legislation would create opportunities for connections and for providing annual advice to the ministers, ultimately leading to five-year plans.
I actually believe the Conservatives used AI in order to generate 20,000-plus amendments.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:22:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that is false.
Maybe the member could tell me if the Conservative Party actually used AI to develop the 20,000-plus amendments that it introduced at the committee stage. Could we get a simple yes or no? Did Conservatives actually use AI?
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 12:58:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege from the member for La Prairie with respect to announcing certain policy initiatives.
Page 899 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “Speakers have maintained that [budget] secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention rather than one of privilege.” On November 18, 1981, in relation to budget secrecy, Speaker Sauvé noted, “[budget] secrecy has no impact on the privileges of a member”, and goes on to say, “but [further]...has nothing to do with [the] privilege.”
The House will have opportunities to consider the budget when it is properly before the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has announced that she will be presenting the budget to the House at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16. Following the presentation of the budget, the House will have four days of debate, and the opposition parties will be able to move an amendment and a subamendment to the budget motion. Following a vote on the main motion for the budget, the House will consider a ways and means motion, and, following its adoption, will see the introduction of the budget implementation bill.
Where privilege arises is the period between when notice is given of the budget bill and its subsequent introduction. However, if the measures to be contained in the budget implementation bill are tabled in the form of a notice of ways and means motion while the bill is on notice, members of the House will already have the contents of the budget implementation bill to consider, which by its very tabling in the House of Commons obviates the ability to raise an associated question of privilege.
Budget secrecy is a matter of convention. The executive has the right and the ability to communicate with Canadians about proposed budget measures in advance of the tabling of the budget. This represents the fundamental right of the duly elected government to present its plan to Canadians about how it will help them, as is the case with the Speech from the Throne.
These are policy proposals, and their announcement does not, in any way, interfere with the rights of the members of the House. The matter in no way interferes with the rights and privileges of members, as has been established by precedent. Perhaps it is due to the popularity of the proposals with the public that the member may seem be taking some offence.
420 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 1:09:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, could my colleague provide further thoughts regarding the benefits of the sustainable jobs action plan? We are talking about every five years, and there is a great deal of merit for that. I do not quite understand why the official opposition would see that as a bad thing. It is more of a longer-term plan that could have a positive outcome, when we start consulting with Canadian workers and others to ultimately come up with a plan.
What does he think?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 1:29:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, that is confirmation that the Conservatives did use AI on those 20,000-plus amendments, I see.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 1:50:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the majority of members inside this chamber recognize the importance of Bill C-50 to Canadians as a whole.
What we have witnessed, once again, is the obstructive, destructive behaviour coming from the official opposition. We can highlight what took place in committee, where AI was used to generate 20,000-plus amendments. I am wondering if my colleague could share with me what he thinks about AI being used to generate a filibuster for the official opposition.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 4:15:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative caucus has come up with this new regime of research called “AI”. That was well demonstrated at committee. They actually came up with 20,000-plus amendments to the legislation.
Could the member provide her thoughts on the Conservative Party using that new tool to filibuster good legislation that, ultimately, is going to have a positive impact for the people of Canada and our environment?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 4:20:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that, in the process of passing legislation, we have consistently seen a certain behaviour pattern from the official opposition. That behaviour is dictated by the leader of the Conservative Party. It really is a destructive force. The Conservatives try to, as much as possible, make the House of Commons a dysfunctional place. We see that.
The member just finished saying how a lot of hard work is done at the committee stage. For this particular legislation, and I asked the member about this in a question, there were 20,000-plus amendments to an 11-page bill.
That is not Conservative hard work at play. That is artificial intelligence, AI, being utilized as a weapon of destruction, if I can put it that way, to try to prevent legislation from passing.
I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party does not recognize that climate change is real. At the end of the day, on the legislation the Conservatives are trying to prevent from passing, they should be talking a little more to Gen Z and Gen X. These are the types of jobs that are going to be there in the future.
Members can take a look at what the legislation actually does. What is wrong with forming a council that would provide advice on policy for the government and, ultimately, a five-year action plan? This is such an important issue. It is about transitioning and being able to see those jobs of the future, in multiples of hundreds of thousands. What is wrong with ensuring that there would be a secretariat there to coordinate?
The Conservative Party will pop in to say something, whether here or in committee. Conservatives will filibuster. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting.
I invite members to think of Bill C-49. Bill C-49 was the Atlantic accord legislation. The committee just finished it earlier this afternoon, maybe half an hour ago, or however long it was. Do members know how many days and weeks ago we passed this in the House, and how we had to drag the Conservative Party to get the bill out of second reading? The Conservative Party opposed the legislation. Conservatives oppose it because, at the end of the day, they want to be able to prevent legislation, good, sound legislation, so they come up with all sorts of excuses.
Bill C-49, from my perspective, is a prosperity piece of legislation that would help Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the province of Nova Scotia. It is mirror legislation for those provinces, which are waiting for Ottawa to ultimately pass this bill so they can get on board with moving forward on renewable energy. It seems this is something that the Conservative Party just does not understand. Conservatives want to be stuck in the past and not recognize the future opportunities for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector.
It is not just Liberals who are saying this. Bill C-49, which they opposed, involves two premiers, and one of them is a Progressive Conservative premier. I will highlight the fact that I put the word “progressive” ahead of the word “conservative” because, as Brian Mulroney, former prime minister, said, the current Conservative Party has amputated any sense of being progressive from its name.
Former prime minister Joe Clark has said that he never left the Conservative Party, but that the Conservative Party had left him because it had gone so far to the right. Kim Campbell's remarks reinforced what Joe Clark said, and more.
We just cannot trust the Conservative Party when it comes to the important issues of jobs, our environment and being there for Canadians in a very real way. We want an economy that works for everyone and a sense of fairness. We want Gen Z and Gen X to be engaged in a very proactive way. By voting against this legislation, members are not thinking of future generations of workers. The Conservative Party is turning its back on green jobs, and its members are demonstrating that by voting against this legislation and voting against Bill C-49. These are opportunities for us to grow.
Members can take a look at the legislation itself and ask why the Conservative Party of Canada would oppose it. It would create a sustainable jobs partnership council, which is, in essence, what the legislation is primarily there for. The minister would have an advisory group that would help set policy and be there to do some research and support Canadians, all so we would be in a better position to capitalize on renewable energy jobs. What is wrong with that? Why would the Conservatives feel so compelled to not only vote against the legislation, but also propose 20,000 amendments at the committee stage?
When I asked that question, a member said, “Well, I had a few of those amendments”. Let us look at the amendments, which the member actually knew a few of. I can guarantee members that there is not one Conservative who knows all 20,000-plus amendments because the Conservative Party did not come up with them. Rather, it was computerized artificial intelligence that ultimately produced that number of amendments so that the Conservative Party of Canada, in its official opposition role, could prevent this legislation from passing. Why is that? It is because it does not want workers, community members or indigenous communities to be engaged in providing ideas on how we can produce government policy. Why not?
This is not just about these two pieces of legislation. We can take a look at some of the budgetary measures we have to support renewable jobs. I think one of the largest and most significant announcements that was made was on the Volkswagen plant. We are talking about thousands of direct jobs, and even more indirect jobs. It is not just going to be for one area for the country, as a plant of this magnitude is going to require all sorts of materials.
Whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures, members of the Conservative Party of Canada continues to stand up and want to filibuster to prevent good, sound policy. This is done at a substantial cost, which is the cost of future renewable energy jobs and the substantial cost to our environment. I say shame on them for not recognizing that. At the end of the day, they are there not to oppose and prevent things from passing, but to take policy positions for the betterment of Canadians. I am still waiting to see evidence of that.
1121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 4:32:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the leader of the Green Party. Having said that, I disagree with her conclusions.
At the end of the day, when this legislation passes and is ultimately put into place, it would assist the government, whatever political stripe it might be, to be in a better position to not only transition but to generate and create opportunities in a coordinated fashion for future renewable energy jobs. There is absolutely no denying that.
When the consultations are done and there is an effective advisory committee that would bring the evidence to the minister, the minister would be better able to make the decisions that would ultimately provide the types of policy necessary to have a positive impact. When we think of the environment, we need to take a look at it with a 30,000-foot, holistic approach, incorporating legislation such as this, the net-zero legislation, budgetary measures and other policy statements regarding single-use plastics or trees. There are all sorts of initiatives.
If we look at what we have been able to put together, it speaks volumes in terms of future jobs, a future healthier environment and a stronger leadership role for Canada to play in the world in dealing with the climate crisis that we have.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 4:35:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that they should not listen to Conservative facts because they are most often misleading. Following that, I would remind the member and others that if they want to talk about job numbers, it took 10 years for Stephen Harper to create just about a million jobs. In eight years, the Liberals have created over two million jobs.
At the end of the day, we have taken budgetary and legislative measures that would ensure there is a higher sense of fairness for Canadians, whether they are generation Z, the middle class as a whole or those who are aspiring to become a part of the middle class. We understand the needs of generation Z and generation X, and we are going to be there with—
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 4:52:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford respecting the government response to Order Paper Question No. 2340.
I wanted to acknowledge that, in this matter, the government has reviewed the response and the process used to produce the response in question. What was discovered is that there was an administrative error in the tasking of the response; this led to inaccurate information being provided to the member and to the House. I unreservedly apologize for that error.
The response was tasked to the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development when it should have been tasked across all departments and agencies.
In addition, it has come to light that this error extends to include Order Paper Question No. 2142.
The government will produce supplemental responses to these OPQs by tasking all government departments and agencies on an urgent basis to ensure that this question is responded to in a timely and accurate manner. In the course of our review, should it be determined that this could involve other OPQs, the government will include those as well.
Again, this is an unfortunate administrative error, but I can assure the member and the House that it was not the government's intention to provide inaccurate information with respect to this matter.
A compilation of supplemental responses to these questions will be produced on a priority basis.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 5:17:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 5:19:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 5:20:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 5:21:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would again request a recorded vote.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
